🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”